Moses v. Macferlan [1760]

(1760) 2 Burr 1005 · Court of King's Bench · United Kingdom

Restitution Lawrestitution-lawRestitution LawIndebitatus assumpsit, restitution foundation

Issue

Whether an action for money had and received lies to recover money paid under a judgment that was obtained in breach of an agreement not to sue.

Held

Lord Mansfield held that the action for money had and received lies in quasi-contract to recover money that in equity and good conscience should not be retained.

Exam use

In an exam, introduce Moses v. Macferlan with the citation only if you can remember it accurately; otherwise use the case name and court, then focus on the rule and application. A strong answer should say what Moses v. Macferlan decided, why the facts mattered, and how the authority helps resolve the new facts. Avoid treating the case as a decorative reference. Use it to prove a doctrinal step in Indebitatus assumpsit, restitution foundation, then move quickly to analysis.

Summary

Moses v. Macferlan is included in the Restitution Law case database because it gives students a concrete authority for Indebitatus assumpsit, restitution foundation. The reported citation is (1760) 2 Burr 1005, and the decision is associated with Court of King's Bench. In revision, treat the case as a way to connect the legal issue to a real dispute rather than as an abstract rule. The key exam move is to state the holding, identify the fact pattern that made the rule matter, and then decide whether a new problem question should apply, distinguish, or limit the authority.

Facts

The material factual signal for Moses v. Macferlan is: Moses gave Macferlan a note under seal, and Macferlan later sued on the note despite an agreement not to do so; Moses paid the judgment and sought restitution. Students should read the linked source and turn that signal into a short fact table: parties, transaction or public-law setting, procedural posture, conduct in dispute, and the fact the court treated as decisive. This prevents vague case-dropping. In an answer on Restitution Law, use the facts to explain why Indebitatus assumpsit, restitution foundation was live, then compare the problem facts against the facts in the case before stating any conclusion.

Procedural History

Moses v. Macferlan is reported as a decision of Court of King's Bench. The procedural route should be checked against the linked source before formal citation. For study notes, record whether the decision was an appeal, judicial review, trial judgment, tribunal ruling, or constitutional/application proceeding, because that posture affects how confidently the rule can be used.

Issue

Whether an action for money had and received lies to recover money paid under a judgment that was obtained in breach of an agreement not to sue.

Held

Lord Mansfield held that the action for money had and received lies in quasi-contract to recover money that in equity and good conscience should not be retained.

Ratio Decidendi

The action for money had and received is a flexible remedy to prevent unjust enrichment, founded on the principle that a defendant should not retain money that belongs in equity to the plaintiff.

Obiter Dicta

Check the linked source for concurring, dissenting, or obiter observations before quoting this case. If the case includes non-binding reasoning, use it as persuasive support rather than as the core rule.

Reasoning

For reasoning, start with the ratio: The action for money had and received is a flexible remedy to prevent unjust enrichment, founded on the principle that a defendant should not retain money that belongs in equity to the plaintiff. Then read the source and separate three things: the legal test, the facts used to apply that test, and any policy or institutional reason the court gave. This structure makes Moses v. Macferlan easier to use in essays and problem questions. In Restitution Law, the case should be compared with related authorities on Indebitatus assumpsit, restitution foundation; if the jurisdiction, statute, or procedural posture differs from the exam problem, explain that limit explicitly instead of treating the authority as automatic.

Plain-English Explanation

Plainly, Moses v. Macferlan is a case to use when a Restitution Law answer needs an authority on Indebitatus assumpsit, restitution foundation. Do not just list it. Explain the problem the court had to solve, the rule or holding it used, and the fact that made the result persuasive. That turns the case from a memorised name into evidence for your legal analysis.

Essay-Ready Explanation Generator

Version 1 of 4

Reference to Moses v. Macferlan ((1760) 2 Burr 1005) strengthens a Restitution Law answer because the case reflects the principle that The action for money had and received is a flexible remedy to prevent unjust enrichment, founded on the principle that a defendant should not retain money that belongs in equity to the plaintiff. Applied to a problem question, the case should be used after identifying the issue as Whether an action for money had and received lies to recover money paid under a judgment that was obtained in breach of an agreement not to sue. The stronger essay move is to connect the material facts to the court's holding, then explain whether the present facts support the same conclusion or justify distinguishing the authority.

Underlying Concepts

  • restitution-law
  • Restitution Law
  • Indebitatus assumpsit, restitution foundation
  • case authority
  • exam application

Key Passages

  • Verify exact wording in the linked source before quoting.

Significance

Moses v. Macferlan is significant for LawConquer users because it supplies a named authority for Indebitatus assumpsit, restitution foundation in Restitution Law. The case can anchor a paragraph, support a rule statement, or provide a contrast point when another authority points the other way. Its practical value is strongest when the student links the holding to the material facts and then explains whether the present problem is analogous or distinguishable.

Related Cases

No related cases listed.

Exam Tips

In an exam, introduce Moses v. Macferlan with the citation only if you can remember it accurately; otherwise use the case name and court, then focus on the rule and application. A strong answer should say what Moses v. Macferlan decided, why the facts mattered, and how the authority helps resolve the new facts. Avoid treating the case as a decorative reference. Use it to prove a doctrinal step in Indebitatus assumpsit, restitution foundation, then move quickly to analysis.

Revision Checklist

  • Name the issue before discussing facts so the marker sees the legal question immediately.
  • State the holding in one sentence, then use the ratio to explain why the court reached that result.
  • Use the citation and jurisdiction to show why this authority matters for the problem you are answering.
  • Pair this case with one supporting or contrasting authority if the question tests limits, policy, or exceptions.

Problem Question Use

Use Moses v. Macferlan in a problem question by matching the factual trigger to the new scenario. If the fact pattern aligns with Moses gave Macferlan a note under seal, and Macferlan later sued on the note despite an agreement not to do so; Moses paid the judgment and sought restitution., apply the ratio and explain the likely result. If a crucial fact, jurisdiction, statute, or procedural posture differs, distinguish the case and use it as a boundary rather than a controlling answer.

Common Pitfalls

  • Name-dropping the case without applying the facts
  • Ignoring jurisdiction or procedural posture
  • Quoting without checking the linked source

Sources